Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> > Which basically comes down to this: an id represents a location in
> > memory for any objects that don't override the .id method.
>
> Aiee! No! Please don't let things override the address-in-memory method,
> as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> Which basically comes down to this: an id represents a location in
> memory for any objects that don't override the .id method.
Aiee! No! Please don't let things override the address-in-memory method,
as that makes foo.id == bar.id comparisons dubious at b
On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 06:48 PM, Dave Storrs wrote:
Hopefully, this thread has been settled by Damian's pointing out the
existence of id(), but could I put in a strong vote against the use of
'===' for anything? It is far too easy to misread as ==, IMHO.
Yes, I think it's settled
On 12/12/02 12:55 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
> As for namespace pollution and classes that use .id in Perl 5, I
> don't think it's going to be a big problem. Built-in identifiers
> do not have a required prefix, but they have an optional prefix,
> which is C<*>. I think we can probably parse
>
> $a
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 12:20:18PM -0500, James Mastros wrote:
: (This is a reply to a mail accidently sent to me personaly instead of
: the list. Buddha, care to resend your other mail? I havn't quoted it
: in total.)
:
: On 12/12/2002 9:43 AM, Buddha Buck wrote:
:
: >James Mastros wrote:
:
(resent as requested)
James Mastros wrote:
Here's my basic defintion of ID: Two things should have the same ID
if-and-only-if they will behave exactly the same, now and forevermore.
Thus, there should be one ID for all constants of the same value, which
is different from all constants of diff
(This is a reply to a mail accidently sent to me personaly instead of
the list. Buddha, care to resend your other mail? I havn't quoted it
in total.)
On 12/12/2002 9:43 AM, Buddha Buck wrote:
James Mastros wrote:
Here's my basic defintion of ID: Two things should have the same ID
if-and-on
On 12/11/02 11:41 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
>> More generally, I really don't want to have too many (any?) "system" object
>> method names squatting in "my" all-lowercase object method namespace. It's
>> not hard to think of many kinds of objects that would naturally have an "id"
>> attribute, but mu
On 12/12/2002 5:50 AM, Aaron Crane wrote:
Damian Conway writes:
There's no need for special methods or (gods forbid) more operators.
Just:
$obj1.id == $obj2.id
That's what the universal C method is *for*.
How universal are universal methods?
That is, can a programmer override .id() in a
Damian Conway writes:
> There's no need for special methods or (gods forbid) more operators.
> Just:
>
> $obj1.id == $obj2.id
>
> That's what the universal C method is *for*.
How universal are universal methods?
That is, can a programmer override .id() in a user-defined class? If so,
simpl
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 02:54:18PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> "Michael Lazzaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > After thinking about it a little more, I'll set myself on the "yes"
> > side. And propose either '===' or ':=:' to do it.
>
> Definitely '==='.
Hopefully, this thread has been settled
Luke Palmer:
# > There's no need for special methods or (gods forbid) more operators.
# > Just:
# >
# > $obj1.id == $obj2.id
# >
# > That's what the universal C method is *for*.
#
# I rather like that. It's used for hashing by default (in
# absence of a stringification or .hash (?) method
At 9:43 PM -0700 12/11/02, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
X-Sent: 11 Dec 2002 23:16:30 GMT
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:16:26 +1100
From: Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Accept-Language: en, en-us
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.20, http://develooper.com/code
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> From: "Dave Whipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:54:18 -0800
> Organization: Fast-Chip inc.
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4920.2300
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Micro
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> X-Sent: 11 Dec 2002 23:16:30 GMT
> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:16:26 +1100
> From: Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Accept-Language: en, en-us
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.20, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>
> There's no need for special m
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:21:35 -0500
> From: John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.20, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>
> On 12/11/02 6:16 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
> > There's no need for
On 12/11/02 6:16 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
> There's no need for special methods or (gods forbid) more operators.
> Just:
>
>$obj1.id == $obj2.id
>
> That's what the universal C method is *for*.
I must have missed this (or forgotten it?) Any chance of it becoming .ID or
.oid or even ._id? I
Dave Whipp wrote:
"Michael Lazzaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After thinking about it a little more, I'll set myself on the "yes"
side. And propose either '===' or ':=:' to do it.
Definitely '==='.
I could also see :== or =:= as well.
If we have
$obj1 = $obj2;
then presumably, ($obj1
There's no need for special methods or (gods forbid) more operators.
Just:
$obj1.id == $obj2.id
That's what the universal C method is *for*.
Damian
At 2:28 PM -0800 12/11/02, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 02:15:40PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 11:16 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
>This brings up something that's been on the tip of my toungue for
>awhile. In many object-oriented languages
"Michael Lazzaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After thinking about it a little more, I'll set myself on the "yes"
> side. And propose either '===' or ':=:' to do it.
Definitely '==='.
This is used in various other languages.
> >$obj1 eq $obj2;# [1] are their stringifications identical?
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 02:15:40PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 11:16 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
> >This brings up something that's been on the tip of my toungue for
> >awhile. In many object-oriented languages we have seen that there is
> >an important differen
On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 11:16 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
This brings up something that's been on the tip of my toungue for
awhile. In many object-oriented languages we have seen that there is
an important difference between "equal" and "same." Perl already has
two kinds of equal, but I
23 matches
Mail list logo
